Or should we keep sending more troops to fight for these people? Somilia, needs help, Isreal needs help. The world needs help! Or should we just bring all our troops home and tell the world to fend for themselves? I ask this because I'm a retired Marine and understand what is going on, but i'm tired of the ungrateful people(yes there are plenty of Americans that don't get it) This I understand because we have our share of ungrateful morons. And those I understand because they have it to easy. But what about all you other countries that just want to sit back and let America and England fight for you(France, Germany etc.) You all sit and drink your coffee and talk about these poor people in these countries, but yet you do nothing! Other than say let's just talk to them. (UN Morons) It don't work! So as a Marine with 30 years, I just say bring our troops home and say heck with the world. SEE HOW STUPID THAT SOUNDS! To my brothers in arms, GOD BLESS, WE SUPPORT YOU! Semper Fi.
2006-07-20 14:39:31 · 14 answers · asked by basscatcher 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
diplomacy should always be pursued before military might is used
but given that n korea has been constantly yanking the chain of the free world, i say bomb thier asse$ to oblivion
and for iran, pushing israel into the sea? the holocaust didnt happen? yes, we should bomb them to smithereeens too
and for syria who is clandestinely supporting the terrorists, oh yeah sign them up for one too!
sometimes, you cant blame the use of military force. ts just NEEDED at times
but peace should be what everyone aspire too.
2006-07-20 20:09:02 · answer #1 · answered by GEN Gamer 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think that every country should have an army for defence, to defend its territory and in some cases to help other countries that might be attacked by a despotic leader , a rival of sort, but the United States of America is a super power, it has a formidable army, an advance technological power, plain English; SUPERIORITY, so the fiasco with Iran , North Korea and others must be dealt in negotiations, unless one of them attacks the U.S.A. then I can justfy war. bombs ,never! this times are confusing and full of sadness it seems we are loosing our sence of accountability. If the U.S.A. has not stand up and done something with the Lebanon crisis do you think it will do anything with North Korea? I dont think so , the present administration focus is in the middle east ,so when the missiles hit from the Korea it will be a big sorpresa. A person who threatens like the North Korea leader means it and eventually does it.
2006-07-20 15:10:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt America will stick there noses in Syria since there is nothing to steal like oil, and if it is for a peacekeeping situation they won't risk sending troops because it will be another war between military forces and there is no plan for a attack. Remember they suffered a bit in iraq. With Iran, its unclear but its more possible since Iran experienced earthquakes toppling its military so the Americans might get there hands on the oil there, but it'll be seriously risky to attack a super power even after the earthquakes remember that they have Russia as its ally and it might re act serious to this situation because they Iran and Russia border each other so if a missile affects the russian border then this will be taken as a act of war. And as for North Korea it won't happen Kim is trying to show off and if they will both engage in a war which I doubt America will suffer terribly because they wont be able to attack with missiles a lot since its ally SK might be affected and neither america wants to invade a country that's ready for them, remember they took serious casualties in Vietnam by a unprofessional army like viet cong but if they fight the Koreans they'll fight a serious and huge military since it has defensive positions ready, so america won't risk it.
2016-03-27 01:31:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're tired of the ungrateful people in the States and the idle countries of Europe; while encouraging the do-nothing attitude by bringing the troops home. What is this doublethink argument trying to prove?
2006-07-20 14:51:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No problem has ever been solved by inaction, WWII should have been stopped early, however isolationists and appeasement led to Hitler to grow into a huge superpower and drastically impact the 20th century.
2006-07-20 14:45:50 · answer #5 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
should we just bring all our troops home and tell the world to fend for themselves? I
That’s much better !
2006-07-20 14:51:59 · answer #6 · answered by Eternity 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dude, the world can come to an end soon, there's nothin you can't do. might as well wait till 2012 supposibly that's when the world ends. They should get the gangs that kill ppl to war, sum gangs like to kill don't they? why not send them to war?
2006-07-20 15:08:44 · answer #7 · answered by imreallymean 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey HHH .
That is the stupids thing I ever herd !
If the usa chooses to nuke anyone there will be nothing left for them to bomb anyone back . Wake up and get with reality ...
2014-06-06 11:45:59 · answer #8 · answered by Thomas Wilson 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nooo ...states shouldnt bomb ppl..its not nice...innocent ppl die...didnt america learn that when they dropped bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki and the rest of the world
2006-07-20 14:48:49 · answer #9 · answered by jelly_jam_maplesyrup 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
view ogrish.com and go to archives beheadings adults only it made me sick to my stomache.i say nuke em .they have absolutly no regard for human life at all.it is beyond sick muslums want to kill anyone who does not agree with them
2006-07-20 14:47:43 · answer #10 · answered by mjk6886@yahoo.com 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋